Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

SanEat A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Freeman This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

utgard14 Young judge Michael Douglas is frustrated with having to let scumbag criminals go on legal technicalities. Soon he's approached by his friend Hal Holbrook about joining a group of judges that meet in secret and decide to dole out vigilante justice to criminals who the legal system failed to prosecute.Mature, thought-provoking thriller with an excellent first half but man does it fall apart in the end. The basic problem is that the entire first half of the movie is spent building up to Douglas joining this group. So a lot of time is spent on making us emotionally invested in WHY this group is necessary so we're on board with Douglas. But then, almost immediately after joining, the movie pulls the rug out from under itself and Douglas regrets his decision. Then we get a pedestrian climax involving a chase and shootout in a warehouse. All of that passion shown towards caring about the victims in the first half is tossed out in favor of the movie suddenly caring more about some dirtbag drug dealers who are clearly guilty of a lot of terrible crimes but maybe not this particular one they're to be executed for. Sorry but emotionally it's a tough sell.The cast is terrific, with wonderful character actors in roles big and small throughout. The writing in the first half is also really good. But boy, the way it falls apart and so abruptly is such a downer. I'm still giving it a decent score of 7 because when it's good, it's great, but be forewarned that it's a movie that chickens out on its own premise.

Scott LeBrun Amusingly described by one review I read here as "a vigilante movie as it might be envisioned by John Grisham", "The Star Chamber" is a good, solid, entertaining thriller. It misses its chances for greatness due to predictability and a lack of credibility, but while it's playing out, some people, such as this viewer, may not mind too much.Michael Douglas, in one of his earliest star vehicles, plays Steven Hardin, a young judge who's frustrated by the legal system with which he has to work. Far too often criminal scum are able to escape just punishment due to legal technicalities and savvy defense attorneys. Stevens' cagey, witty mentor Benjamin Caulfield (a marvelous Hal Holbrook) eventually reveals to Steven the method he and some fellow judges have employed to deal with the situation: review old, particularly infuriating cases, make judgments, and pass sentence, utilizing the services of a hired gun.This is certainly slick stuff, well made technically with efficient direction by Peter Hyams and it's at least smart enough to provoke some debate. For example, what would *you* do: let the 10 guilty men go free or let the one innocent man get executed? It includes some fairly exciting foot chases as well as one brief and decent car chase in a parking garage. The climactic sequence in the abandoned building is appropriately atmospheric. And Michael Smalls' music score is haunting and effective.Douglas is good in the lead but it's the men in the major supporting parts that truly shine: besides Holbrook, Yaphet Kotto scores as a dedicated detective and James B. Sikking is touching as the father of a murdered child. Sharon Gless has little to do as Stevens' concerned wife. The cast contains an impressive Who's Who roster of character actors, including Joe Regalbuto ('Murphy Brown') and Don Calfa ("The Return of the Living Dead") as a pair of goofy creeps, as well as Jack Kehoe, Larry Hankin, Dick Anthony Williams, David Proval, Robin Gammell, Matthew Faison, Michael Ensign, Jason Bernard, and Robert Costanzo. David Faustino ('Married with Children') plays one of Douglas's kids and Douglas's own real-life mother Diana plays Caulfields' wife; Charles Hallahan ("The Thing", 'Hunter') appears uncredited as police officer Picker.The movie does move along quite well, getting off to a good start but not concluding as strongly. Still, it's good entertainment for most of the time, and may have people talking about its themes after it's over.Seven out of 10.

classicsoncall I first saw this film about twenty years ago and recall being fairly impressed by it. However perceptions change after all that time, and even though I welcomed the opportunity to catch it again the other night on cable, I couldn't help but pick up on a bunch of inconsistencies that brought down my original estimation of the picture.My biggest problem was with the 'in the scoop' argument by the defense attorney. Insisting that the garbage in which a gun used to commit a series of murders was still considered private property until it was co-mingled with everyone else's garbage in the body of the truck led to Judge Hardin's (Michael Douglas) decision that the evidence thus obtained was inadmissible. However it seems to me, had the contents with the gun been dumped, wouldn't the defense argument have been that there was no way to prove the gun came out of a particular garbage can? Unlikely as that might have been, there's your classic reasonable doubt.Then, when Monk and Cooms had their case thrown out on a technicality, they reacted as if they actually had been guilty but got away with it. But since it was later revealed that they were not the ones who killed the boy with the bloody sneaker, there was no reason in hindsight for them to have had that particular reaction. And what about that bloody sneaker? If they were not the real killers, what connection did that sneaker in their car have with the story? Absolutely none. So why was it even there in the first place? With all that, I thought the original premise of the story was pretty good. What decent, law abiding individual hasn't gotten fed up with the convoluted outcomes that result from slimy lawyers working the system to portray criminals as victims? With a little more work this one could have been an effective psychological drama pitting vigilante judges against hardened criminals who got what they deserved, even if it meant circumventing the law. But next time, give us a Judge Hardin that's not so angst driven about a mere technicality like Monk and Cooms being innocent. You know those creeps had to be guilty of something.

Nicholas Rhodes Although the ending of the film is stupid, frustrating and illogical, the rest of this film is in fact pretty good, though it should be mentioned that some of the scenes are difficult to take. Whereas in Europe, justice systems seem more preoccupied with the rights of the criminal and couldn't care less about those of the victim, it seems to me that in the USA they have a more correct sense of right and wrong and probably apportion blame more justly, though of course, no system in the world is perfect. That said, as the film demonstrates, there would appear to be slip-ups even in the American system, and what better than the star chamber to right the wrongs committed by the justice system, murderers let off on technicalities etc etc. This gives the viewer a feeling of satisfaction .... that there is at least one continent in the world where criminals are really made to pay for their crimes. It's all the more surprising then, that a film which gives the impression of supporting this method, as I do, should suddenly at the last minute, want to take the bleeding-heart-liberal defense of the criminal ? What sane person could actually wish that scum such as Monk and Coom continue living instead of being eliminated ? To the film's credit they are actually assassinated by the hit man, but one get's the feeling, rightly or wrongly, that the film's director would have us believe that this is not the way of dealing with criminals, but without proposing a viable alternative solution. So much for the liberal politics of the film, which I find totally obnoxious, but on a cinematic level, it's pretty good and exciting stuff. I found the DVD here recently in Europe, and have watched it several times - although the ending is a real pain in the neck, the rest of the film is definitely worth watching.